Verse 8.20

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation by Ganganath Jha:

जातिमात्रोपजीवी वा कामं स्याद् ब्राह्मणब्रुवः ।
धर्मप्रवक्ता नृपतेर्न शूद्रः कथं चन ?? ॥ २० ॥

jātimātropajīvī vā kāmaṃ syād brāhmaṇabruvaḥ |
dharmapravaktā nṛpaterna śūdraḥ kathaṃ cana ?? || 20 ||

Even a so-called Brāhmaṇa, who makes a living by his caste only, may, at pleasure be the propounder of the Law for the king,—but not a Śūdra under any circumtsances.—(20)

 

Medhātithi’s commentary (manubhāṣya):

It has been said above (under verse 10) that the king shall decide cases helped by Brāhmaṇas and by three men well versed in council. Now, in as much as the caste of these councillors has not been specified, it might so happen that Śūdras might enter the Court, and being ‘councillors,’ it would be permissible for them to decide cases, and being possessed of cultured minds, they might pronounce their opinions on matters relating to the Law; specially in all legal proceedings a knowledge of Smṛti-texts is not essential, on account of not possessing which the Śūdra could be precluded from pronouncing judgments. As a matter of fact, grounds of victory and defeat (in legal proceedings),—such as witnesses and other kinds of evidence—are such as are amenable to the ordinary means of knowledge. For instance, a man possessed of cultivated intelligence can easily find out that ‘such and such a person is a right witness, and not related, by any relationship, to the party citing him,’ or that ‘such another person is not a right witness, having several times been found to have lied’; and such matters are not cognisable means of Smṛti-texts only.

Thus then the present verse contains the prohibition of a possible contingency.

Nor is there any definite rule regarding the caste of the ‘Councillor,’ as there is in regard to that of the ‘Priest’; e.g., having declared that ‘he shall with them (the Councillors) consider the questions, etc., etc.’ (7.56), the text does not say that ‘he shall consider these, with the Brāhmaṇas.’ Thus the the meaning of the verse comes to be this—‘even though a Śūdra might learn up hits of Law, and be a Councillor or an officer for inflicting punishments, yet he shall not pronounce any opinion on the merits of cases being investigated in the King’s Court.’

What is said in the first half of the verse is to be explained as supplementary to the above prohibition. Because it cannot be asserted, in any case, that the Brāhmaṇa, who makes a living by his caste and is entirely devoid of learning and other qualifications, should be a propounder of the Law. Hence, when we come to examine its exact significance and form, the affirmation (contained in the first half of the verse) is found to stand on the same footing as the assertion ‘eat poison, but do not eat in his house,’ where also the affirmation (‘eat poison’) is supplementary to the prohibition, and not a real affirmation at all.

It is for this reason that the author has added the term ‘kāmam,’ ‘may, at pleasure;’ the very use of this term deprives the sentence of its injunctive character.

Other people offer the following explanation:—“Inasmuch as the Brāhmaṇa has been specifically declared to be employed as the Propounder of the Law, in such texts as—‘the learned Brāhmaṇa shall be appointed, etc.,’—this in itself excludes all the other three castes, the Kṣatriya and the rest; so that what the prohibition of the Śūdra in the present verse means is that in the absence of Brāhmaṇas, the Kṣatriya and the Vaiśya may he appointed (hut never the Śūdra).” The rest of it they explain, as above.

‘Who makes a living by his caste only;’—the term ‘mātra,’ ‘only,’ has a restrictive force; the meaning being ‘he who lives only on the strength of his Brāhmaṇa-caste, and not by learning and other qualities, being absolutely devoid of all Brāhmaṇical qualifications.

The term ‘bruva,’ ‘so-called,’ is deprecatory.—(20)

 

Explanatory notes by Ganganath Jha

‘Brāhmaṇabruvaḥ’—‘One whose origin is doubtful, but who calls himself a Brāhmaṇa’ (’Kullūka and Rāghavānanda);—‘despicable Brāhmaṇa’ (Medhātithi and Govindarāja);—‘an initiated Brāhmaṇa who does not study the Veda’ (Nārāyaṇa).

This verse is quoted in Aparārka (p. 601);—in Parāśaramādhava (Vyavahāra, p. 22);—in Smṛtitattva (II, p. 200), which supplies the definition of ‘brāhmaṇabruvaḥ’ as ‘the Brāhmaṇa who neither studies nor teaches (the Veda)—in Kṛtyakalpataru (9a);—and in Vīramitrodaya (Vyavahāra, p. 11a).

 

Comparative notes by various authors

(verses 8.20-21)

Śukranīti (4.5.27).—‘If the Brāhmaṇa he not learned enough, the King should appoint a Kṣatriya or Vaiśya learned in the legal law;—but he shall always avoid the Śūdra.’

Kātyāyana (Aparārka, p. 601).—(Same as Manu.)

Vyāsa (Vyavahāratattva).—‘If the King, leaving the twice-born, tries law-suits with the assistance of Śūdras, he falls.’